Quote:
Originally Posted by snake911
Overall the setlists don't bother me that much, and I think they sound great without Boyd with a couple of exceptions, the big turn off for me is that they used to have "versions" of songs. You could hear Jimi and #41 over and over and it was ok because the solos and jams would play out differently night to night. Now each song feels the exact rehearsed same every single night, so the repetition stands out to me a lot more. I might hit the SF show later this year if I can find cheap tix, and if not I'm ok skipping. Between my one show last year, and the Friday night Sirius concerts I'll have already the current version of everything likely to be played.
|
Bingo.
Look - I've really tried to be as objective as possible in reconciling my current point of view on the band. I mean, those with critical analysis skills whose depth rivals a puddle like to fall back on calling those with my position "haters." As if starting a fansite 18 years ago, pouring in countless hours and dollars to keep it going, forces me to always love what the band does and if I stray from that, "[he's] just a hater." It's a laughable proposition.
What initially drew me to the band, and which remained for the following ~10 years:
- - Unique sound of the violin
- - Excitement that anything can happen on any given night (setlist)
- - Jam songs are different every night
- - Solos are actually that - solos - which can take a song anywhere
- - Uninhibited, soulful saxophone play
- - Great songs making up a very high percentage chunk of every setlist
Now, in my opinion, every single one of those items is no longer the case. I've said it over and over; if this band once again starts hitting those points, I'm back onboard. And this isn't about "living in the past," either. Every single one of those points can remain true, and the music can still continue to grow/change/evolve. None of them are prohibitive to the style of music or the sonic depth of what can be achieved. There are some who have commented, "Why even have a site / podcast if you're just going to rip on the band?" I'm no martyr, and who knows if what is said on the pod ever gets back to the band (although we've seen some indications in the past that they are aware). I'm willing to take the heat, though, if my criticisms possibly fall on willing and open ears. I'm not sitting here saying, "Band sucks. It's over." Sure I have attitude; I'm not a cupful of pencils. That's fun for me to express my opinions in loud ways. But my message is a hell of a lot more constructive and it always has been. This can be fixed. Will they? Do they care? That's what worries me about Dave's comments.
If that's an unreasonable point of view, then nuance and critical analysis is truly dead in this community.